Atheists have a new tactic to avoid confronting the voluminous evidence for God: When your debate opponent catches you dismissing valid scholarship, cry "Courtier' Reply!"
If you follow the debates on God's existence, you may have begun to hear atheists apply a new term: "the Courtier's Reply[1]." It usually occurs in the manner of the following imaginary dialog between an atheist and a theist:
Theist [After considerable back-and-forth has occurred] How can you dismiss thousands of years of the world's greatest thinkers examining the existence of God? Your position boils down to "God obviously doesn't exist, and all those allegedly Great Thoughts from Great Thinkers are just sophistry." But if you haven't carefully studied the arguments for God, how can you know you're right? Don't you have the obligation to familiarize yourself with at least some of the arguments before you dismiss them?
Atheist You're just giving me the Courtier's Reply, which is not valid.
Theist What's "the Courtier's Reply?"
Atheist Allow me to explain. Recall the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, in which the Emperor is actually naked but all his attendants say he's wearing exquisite clothing. Now suppose one of the courtiers of the naked Emperor responds to a clothes-skeptic by saying that until he has read the learned treatises by the learned doctors on the exquisite qualities of the Emperor's clothes, he has no right to disbelieve in those clothes. Well, you're just giving the Courtier's Reply. I don't need to read all those writings by all those "Great Minds" because [lower case!] god obviously doesn't exist.
Let's define our terminology. "The Courtier's Reply" (abbreviated CR) is the accusation that your opponent doesn't understand the arguments about the point being disputed, and therefore his position is unproved. "The Courtier's Reply Ploy" (abbreviated CRP) is the accusation that your opponent is using the CR, and that the CR is invalid. When deployed in a debate about God's existence, the CRP is fundamentally the ploy of claiming that a superficial understanding of the arguments for God is enough to show that they're all sophistry, and that God obviously doesn't exist or, at the very least, is totally unproved.
Atheists claim the Courtier's Reply is invalid. But the CR is always valid when used by theists against atheists, if the atheists are being deliberately ignorant of the arguments for God. If your opponent really is ignorant, it is not invalid to state that he is. What's always invalid is the Courtier's Reply Ploy.
And the reason is simple: In order to know that the Courtier's Reply is invalid, you must already know the truth about the point being disputed. Hearers of the fable know the truth about the Emperor's clothes, and therefore they know that the courtier is arguing invalidly when he tells the clothes-skeptic that he doesn't know what he's talking about. But those arguing about God's existence can't assume they know the truth before they examine the evidence. And the Courtier's Reply Ploy assumes God does not exist simply because His existence seems absurd to the atheist. It assumes the point under dispute. The CRP begs the question, and is therefore invalid.
If, for example, the atheist shows that he doesn't understand the ontological proof, or the teleological proof, or the various cosmological proofs, asserting his ignorance is not an invalid "Courtier's Reply." The atheist really is ignorant. But if the atheist attempts to validate his ignorance by saying "I don't need to study those arguments. They're obviously invalid because god obviously doesn't exist. You're just giving me the Courtier's Reply," then he's guilty of the invalid Courtier's Reply Ploy.
In truth, the term "Courtier's Reply" isn't used very often. Perhaps that's because it was introduced only recently[2] and has not had a chance to spread. Or, one would hope, it's because many atheists realize that the CRP is not only invalid, but positively sophomoric. But the Ploy is definitely worth understanding because it points to the number one issue in the public debate about the existence of God: Most apologists for atheism absurdly claim there's no evidence for God, and ignorantly (or arrogantly) dismiss a vast body of valid evidence.
The current public debate on God's existence occurs primarily because "evangelical atheists" (those who try to spread atheism), ignoring or misinterpreting several millennia of valid arguments for God, publicly dare theists to prove them wrong. And when the theist responds by presenting some of this evidence, even if he does a good job, the atheist responds either by declaring the argument invalid by definition ("because god is obviously absurd") or by pointing to what he falsely thinks is a flaw (the alleged flaw and the demonstration that it's not a flaw having been pointed out countless times before) and saying "Nope. Not convinced."
In my experience, the vast majority of public debate about God"s existence consists of theists trying to get atheists to acknowledge some of the evidence, and atheists refusing. And understanding the Courtier's Reply Ploy clarifies the significance of this refusal. Instead of acknowledging that they're unfamiliar with the arguments for God and the vast literature concerning them, or acknowledging that their interpretation of the evidence is not the only plausible one, atheists often resort to the CRP, even if they don't use that terminology. They say, in effect, "All your evidence is invalid. God is totally unproved."
But we're not listening to a fable about a situation whose truth we already know. We're not omniscient, and therefore we cannot know if the theist is a courtier for a Naked Emperor. And since we're not omniscient we must study the evidence, not superciliously dismiss it.
There are two real reasons why most atheists reject God. One, they hate the idea of a God who is superior to man and has authority over him. Two, they assume without proof, and usually without even acknowledging that proof is needed, that the supernatural–i.e., that which science cannot study–does not exist. Their alleged rebuttals of the evidence are entirely dependent on this unproven assumption.
But one cannot just assume that something doesn't exist. An unknown could exist. The atheist must therefore either offer proof that the supernatural cannot exist or else admit there is valid evidence for God.
The number one issue in the public debate on God's existence is the atheists (or, more generally, skeptics) perversely refusing to accept good evidence. So if you're arguing for theism, don't let them get away with it. Some skeptics, to be sure, will sometimes listen to evidence for God with genuine interest. If your interlocutor shows such interest, provide the evidence. But if, as often happens, the skeptic is hostile to valid evidence, another approach is needed. Tell the skeptic he has no good reason to reject good evidence. Point out that he is assuming–not proving–the impossibility of the supernatural, that he cannot just assume the answer he prefers, and that his objections are nullified if the supernatural is possible. Demand that he either find real rebuttals of the evidence for God or else have integrity and admit God exists.
Theist, don't accept an unnecessary burden of proving God. God exists, and has been proved. Study so that you can do a good job, and then present the evidence. From then on, the burden of disproof is on the skeptic.
[1] The linked page, while not admitting that it can be valid, does a good job of defining "Courtier's Reply."
[2] P.Z Meyers introduced it in a blog post dated 12/24/2006
For a so-called intellectual you didn’t really check out what the Courtier’s reply really means and where it came from. Check out Eagleton’s review of the God Delusion in the London Review of Books. He has a quote that started this.
“What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope?”
Atheists don’t really care about these lines of inquiry, as they don’t address the question “Do gods exist?”. In the Christian tradition, the only subset of theology we care about is apologetics, which focuses on this question. We don’t care one whit about philosophy that starts with the assumption that God already exists. That is what the Courtier’s reply is replying too.
Your hypothetical dialog of the theist that includes the statement “But if you haven’t carefully studied the arguments for God, how can you know you’re right?” is a straw man, because the theist is talking about apologetics here, and the Courtier’s reply cannot be used. Atheists love to rebute actual arguments for god. Whether it is the cosmological argument, teleological argument, ontological argument or whatever.
Professor Roebuck gets things off to a fine mess by begging the question right at the top of his post. Here’s what he writes:
“Atheists have a new tactic to avoid confronting the voluminous evidence for God:” Of course the atheist would be in error if he denied “voluminous evidence” for God, but that is precisely what is at issue. Roebuck has not shown that such evidence exists–he simply asserts that it does. The irrelevance of the rest of his presentation should become obvious from the fallacy with which it begins.
Gestell makes just the sort of mindless assertion that my essay discussed. He asserts that there is no evidence for God, when there obviously is. That I did not present any of the evidence for God is irrelevant because I did not claim that my essay was for the purpose of presenting such evidence. Gestell’s comment is analogous to criticizing an essay on Beethoven’s romanticism because it says nothing about modernism.
As I age and gain some wisdom hopefully, I have concluded that winning arguments on beliefs is silly.
People come to God (and also conservatism for that matter)on their own timeline.
Alas, some never get it.
Faith is faith, it does not require evidence.
True the existence of God is logical but there is no “thing”
that proves it.
Wrong on both counts. Plenty of atheists understand the ontological and teleological arguments and along with other faulty lines of reasoning have been repeatedly proven to be nonsense.
Ontological argument
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ontological_argument
Teleological argument (argument from design)
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Teleological_argument
I found your post because it was in the top three for the Google News atheist category, so congrats. I’m afraid that any increased attention due to this will not win you any converts, or even any respect. Like Gestel, to cite just one problem: “But one cannot just assume that something doesn’t exist. An unknown could exist. The atheist must therefore either offer proof that the supernatural cannot exist or else admit there is valid evidence for God.” I can assume leprechauns don’t exist, and I bet that you’d agree. It is impossible to prove a negative. The whole last sentence is a false dichotomy, a non sequitur and completely dense. Congrats, again.
To jprairie
Your response strikes me as funny, because it is so obviously correct. The only thing I would add is that God comes to people as well as people come to God. Some are open and accept him, while others are closed and deny him.
Mr. Roebuck
I like your term “evangelical atheists” and even while I was an atheist for 30 years I could not understand them, except for a few that blamed God for some tragedy. I suppose most atheists have some hidden tragedy they use to justify their beliefs. Mine was that Rebel Without a Cause thing. To me the idea that God does not exist is incompatible with preaching. But I must also admit that this bank of evidence you allude to means little to me. I believe in God because he spoke to me and I reject all dogma because he said “That’s OK!”
I think that the problem here is that none of the participants here really understand how atheists actually think.
The common consensus is that atheists claim that there is no god, but that’s not true. Claiming that something that by definition is unknowable, doesn’t exist is even more absurd than insisting that it does. If it’s unknowable, then how can one KNOW that it actually exists? The true atheist doesn’t say that there is no god. The true atheist simply says that he’s never seen any evidence to suggest that a god does exist. There’s a big difference between the two.
I’ve been involved in this debate for 2 years now with a dear friend who’s an evangelical Christian, and each time we talk about this, I ask him to provide me with just one piece of empirical evidence to support his belief in a god of some kind, and in all of that time he hasn’t been able to provide me with one single bit of evidence. The closest he’s come has been to recommend that I read a book which he claims presents dozens of pieces of evidence. I told him that if it does, he should pick out one good one and pass it on to me, but thus far he’s been unable to do even that.
The author begins this piece by saying:
“Atheists have a new tactic to avoid confronting the voluminous evidence for God: When your debate opponent catches you dismissing valid scholarship, cry “Courtier’ Reply!”
The only evidence that atheists reject is ANECDOTAL evidence. It’s like the “irreducible complexity” theory of “Intelligent Design” which simply says that there are things that are so amazingly complex, that they simply couldn’t have come about through random chance. There IS however, no empirical evidence to support the god delusion.
However if I’m wrong, I welcome anyone reading this to show me some.
fs
Fairly simple and simplistic thoughts.
The mistake (probably deliberate) is that the author of the article seems to confuse the term “evidence” with the term “argument”.
As a high school debater, I was able to “argue” most any proposition from either side. As such, I realized when I was about 14 that a good argument did not necessarily mean that I was providing evidence. The OJ trial is a god example of evidence being ignored in favor of “good” argument. “It it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” is catchy, but does not prove or disprove the evidence.
Simply because for hundreds of years, theologians have worked to refine their arguments for the existence of a god, does not mean that they have also provided evidence or proof of such a being.
The movement of tall grass can be the result of either a leopard approaching or the wind. Good arguments can be offered to support either possibility (there is movement of tree branches so we know that there is wind; leopards have eaten other members of the tribes so we know that leopards exist), but one needs evidence rather than “good arguments” before ignoring the movement and simply assuming that the good argument for wind being the cause is sufficient reason to reject the possibility of there being a leopard moving in to make you his or her dinner.
As long as theists insist that good arguments or sophisticated theologies can substitute for actual evidence–or even demand that we accept their arguments as being the equivalent of evidence, then the theists have nothing. Woo woo, bs, delusion, lunacy, scam, you can pick the term.
As for the accusation that the burden of proof is on the atheist, I would point out that WE are not demanding that you disbelieve or that you behave in specific ways. WE promote laws that promote human welfare, not laws that cater to any group’s imaginary beings. True that atheists are capable of committing crimes and doing murder, but I have never heard of atheists doing so in the name of atheism. That includes Stalin and Mao.
On the other hand, deists have burned people at the stake simply for worshipping the same god, but doing it differently. 9/11 occurred because one group believed that their imaginary being was tougher than another’s. This is equivalent to me blowing up my neighbor because he believes that Batman is tougher than Superman.
I don’t care what you believe and how you come to that belief, but when you want me to believe your magic story, the burden of proof is on you.
Yes, if everyone would just accept that the naked emperor is fully dressed, we can all be happy and get balloons and go to Chuck E. Cheese for pizza and games. But it only took one little kid to point out that the guy was not wearing clothes and the whole sham fell apart. I’m with the little kid.
Tim Campbell
Swemson points out that the article misrepresents how atheists think, which is true. But it’s no surprise; I been obliged on numerous occasions to point out that the denizens of IC are God-awful mind-readers. Nearly every thought, perspective, and argument that they attribute to people like me (ie, secular liberal-ish types) is utterly unrecognizable to me. Silly stuff nobody believes, but it is satisfying for the IC folks to fantasize that we do.
Such as the writer asserting that atheists hate the very idea of a God who is superior to them. I suppose some atheist somewhere might feel that way, but I’ve never met one. It’s just goofy. Atheists tend not to believe in God because they don’t see any evidence for His existence. Simple as that, really.
I agree that the writer never offered any evidence, although I guess he was not obliged to, in the confines of a brief article. No doubt the ‘evidence’ he envisions would take years to examine, since he cites religious traditions going back a thousand years.
But I am curious about his use of the word ‘evidence’, since it seems the crux of the matter. He uses several words – evidence, arguments, proofs – somewhat interchangeably.
What does the writer consider ‘evidence’ to be? Is the teleological argument evidence? Is a logical proof evidence? I am curious if the writer sees a distinction among the concepts of ‘evidence’ held by scientists, atheists, and religionists?
Oz
To Waytoomuchcoffee,
You’re saying that the Courtier’s Reply is a type of question-begging. If that’s what it was, it would indeed be invalid. But I often see it being used in the sense given in my essay. And RationalWiki backs me up when it says
Essentially [the Courtier’s Reply] is a form of intellectual bullying that questions a person’s right to rebut an argument due to the rebutter’s supposed lack of experience with the subject in question.
If “Courtier’s Reply” is defined to be “making an argument that assumes God exists,” then it RationalWiki’s responsibility to say so. And they don’t say so.
And your claim that the arguments for God have been rebutted is mistaken. Your belief betrays invalid thinking on your part rather than showing a weakness in these arguments.
To Astupka,
They have only been “repeatedly proven to be nonsense” because the atheist presupposes naturalism. And since naturalism is not proved, the rebuttals are invalid.
To Norwegian Shoooter,
There is no evidence for Leprechauns; there is evidence for God.
To Swemson,
There is evidence for God. To deny that such evidence exists requires that one apply the wrong criteria. Your criteria (apparently) is that all evidence must be empirical. But if you use the word “empirical” to mean what most people take it to mean (derived only via sense perception) then you are being irrational: The proposition “The only valid evidence is empirical” cannot be validated via empirical evidence. Therefore it must, according to its own criteria, be regarded as false. You are judging the evidence falsely and therefore drawing the wrong conclusion.
To Ozzie M.
You said “Atheists tend not to believe in God because they don’t see any evidence for His existence. Simple as that, really.”
But why does the atheist insist on dismissing evidence that is obviously valid? There must be a reason why the atheist does not acknowledge reality. The most plausible reason is that he does not want to acknowledge it.
You ask what my definition of “evidence” is. No precise definition can be given, because a precise definition of the difference between “evidence” and “non-evidence” would be equivalent to a precise definition of the difference between truth and falsehood. And truth cannot be known just by getting the right definition.
Nevertheless, “evidence” basically means words (i.e., ideas) that point the reader to a truth. Even when the evidence is good, some will refuse to acknowledge the truth, at which point their refusal is their fault rather than the fault of the one giving the evidence.
To camtimothy
Your distinction between evidence and argument is irrelevant for the point here. The point is, you falsely and foolishly regard the evidence for God as invalid. That is your problem, not mine; I’m just trying to warn those who might possible be influenced by the warning.
“To camtimothy
Your distinction between evidence and argument is irrelevant for the point here. The point is, you falsely and foolishly regard the evidence for God as invalid. That is your problem, not mine; I’m just trying to warn those who might possible be influenced by the warning.”
Sorry, Alan, but like most fundaloons, you ignore actual fact and simply make up your own. Your theists and deists have never shown any actual evidence for the existence of any gods.
Your arguments are not evidence; they are ARGUMENTS. Verbalizations of your own personal beliefs. Actual evidence would require verifiable miracles or verifiable communication from your magic being.
Your “evidence” consists of anectdotal and unverifiable miracles (Aunt Minnie’s gout was cured right after she went to Prayer Circle), ancient and also unverifiable claims of wonders and communications, claims made by con men and lunatics; and woo woo of the “gee, the world is so beautiful; must be God!” or “gee, the world is really complex; must have been made by God.”
Esentially, I AM quite familiar with modern theology, with modern biblical scholarship, history, and science. I’ve read the fundaloon apologists as well as the moderate woo woo faith mongers, and none of you have provided an argument that was any more sophisticated or logical than the level of Bill OReilly’s “the tides come in; the tides go out. You can’t explain that.”
Move a mountain or regenerate the limb of an amputee. THEN you can crow about having “evidence” for the existence of God.
And no, Alan, it is not that I consider the evidence for God to be invalid. I haven’t seen any!!!!! I’ve heard and read a lot of lies, a lot of misunderstandings of nature, and a whole lot of misrepresentations of science, along with a lot of sincere woo woo. But I have never seen a shred of actual verifiable evidence to support the existence of God. And you have not only refused to share any with us, you continue to confuse evidentiary argument with philophical musings.
It is NOT obvious that God exists. If it was obvious, then I would not be writing this comment. Revelation to an ancient nomad doesn’t quite cut it. The inner warmth of wishing there be a God doesn’t cut it. The inane belief that a God is needed and must therefore exist is just that: inane and unnecesary.
Alan, these are arguments. They are contentions and NOT actual evidence. A man or woman claiming that God spoke to them is not evidence. It is much more likely schizophrenia or a scam. If it is sincere, then the same god can certainly communicate directly with the rest of us–but does not need to speak through the toaster oven!!!
Tim Campbell
Prof Roebuck can’t even explain what he thinks “evidence” is except for a ‘definition’ that is amazingly fuzzy: “words (i.e., ideas) that point the reader to a truth.” Roebuck isn’t conducting a rational discussion at all–he is simply inventing meanings for the key terms of his presentation and saying that everyone who doesn’t buy into his meanings is wrong. He keeps telling us that there is really real ‘evidence’ that God exists, but provides none, and given what he understands ‘evidence’ to be, this is hardly surprising.
“And RationalWiki backs me up when it says…. If “Courtier’s Reply” is defined to be “making an argument that assumes God exists,” then it RationalWiki’s responsibility to say so. And they don’t say so.”
Really? Your only research was from a wiki and it’s the wiki’s fault if it is wrong? I would have loved to use that line in college with my instructors, instead of looking for the source material.
“And your claim that the arguments for God have been rebutted is mistaken. Your belief betrays invalid thinking on your part rather than showing a weakness in these arguments.”
Your statement insisting the arguments have been rebutted, without knowing what arguments I was talking about, or what the counter-arguments were, shows a distinct close-mindedness. Your insistence you are correct without even knowing what you think you are correct about is telling.
Oh, and there is evidence for leprechauns, by the way. There are many people who have said they have seen them and even interacted with them. I have talked to people from Ireland that insist it is real and not a joke. However, most people do not believe this evidence, especially testimonials. I certainly don’t. Even if this testimonial is thousands of years more recent than testimonials about Jesus and you can actually talk to the witnesses.
There are also written testimonials about Isis. One that was written about 50 BC says this:
“In proof of this, as they say, they advance not legends, as the Greeks do, but manifest facts; for practically the entire inhabited world is their witness, in that it eagerly contributes to the honours of Isis because she manifests herself in healing. For standing above the sick in their sleep she gives them aid for their diseases and works remarkable cures upon such as submit themselves to her; and many who have been despaired of by their physicians because of the difficult nature of their malady are restored to health by her, while numbers who have altogether lost the use of their eyes or of some other part of their body, whenever they turn for help to this goddess, are restored to their previous condition.”
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/historical-proof-that-isis-healed-more-than-jesus/
In one of your responses Mr. Roebuck you said that your original post was not intended to be a presentation of the evidence for the existence of God. Alright, I accept this as true. But now you are asked to meet the challenge. Give us atheists a post in which you do present the evidence. Stop telling us it is there and provide it. You are acting under the delusion that we have seen the evidence and refuse to accept it for some dogmatic reason. It is possible we have examined what you are calling the evidence for God. But how can we know this unless you tell us specifically what you consider to be the evidence. I suspect that the evidence to which you refer is evidence we have examined but found wanting because it fails the scientific criteria for what constitutes evidence. This would be evidence that is testable and verifiable by scientific means, not simply evidence presented as philosophical argumentation. So if you insist that we see the evidence as you do then first specifically lay out the evidence you think we are misinterpreting or willfully rejecting for dogmatic reasons. Additionally, after laying out this evidence explain to us how our interpretation of this evidence is faulty and yours is not.
In another response here you criticize atheists for assuming the position of naturalism without evidence on which to base this assumption. But given that we have seen no supernaturally caused events, we don’t dogmatically assume naturalism. We accept naturalism given the lack of verifiable supernatural events or phenomena. In fact, one poster here, camtimothy made the same point and you failed to respond to his challenge. Present us with several scientifically verifiable miracles or supernatural events. Camtimothy actually provided you with a few examples of the type that would impress us. Furthermore, you are guilty of the same offense with which you charge atheists. You have provided no evidence that substantiates what I assume to be your position that supernaturalism is to be preferred or assumed over naturalism or that it is the superior assumption with which to start.
You accuse atheists of denying reality and refusing to accept “valid” evidence. But you have yet to detail what you think is the valid evidence. It is not we who are denying reality. In fact, we atheists more likely have a firmer grip on reality than you believers because you believe in a realm that is beyond our ability to observe via scientific means. You simply assume it exists because, I suspect, you have fallen victim to the trap of seeing design around you and via the argument of incredulity assuming that this appearance of design cannot possibly have any explanation other than a self-aware, intelligent designer who resides in some supernatural realm. This makes you no different than Deepak Chopra and his ilk who insist that there is some realm beyond the reality directly accessible by our senses, some greater reality. And all we have to do is suspend our critical thinking faculties and “open ourselves” to it. All we need do is, in your view, unburden ourselves of naturalism (without giving us a rational, logical, evidence-based reason to do so) and accept supernaturalism.
In one of your responses you reply to one poster that his “criteria (apparently) is that all evidence must be empirical. But if you use the word “empirical” to mean what most people take it to mean (derived only via sense perception) then you are being irrational: The proposition “The only valid evidence is empirical” cannot be validated via empirical evidence. Therefore it must, according to its own criteria, be regarded as false. ”
In the above comment you assault the use of empirical evidence. Yet you provide no logical reason why whatever method you are using to judge the evidence is superior. And you are wrong in your implied claim that valid empirical evidence must be validated via empirical evidence . It is not necessary to validate empirical evidence with other empirical evidence. It is only necessary to establish that using empirical criteria provide sufficient means to distinguish between empirical evidence that is false and therefore leads to false conclusions and empirical evidence that leads to conclusions that clearly match observation of the material world. If you reject empiricism as a valid means of collecting the evidence then what method do you employ? Anecdotal evidence? Mystical experience? Personal inner experience? Revelation? What? And please provide the evidence that your means of weighing the evidence is superior. Please provide the proof that your means leads to more productive and useful and correct explanations of phenomena. In short, provide a compelling, convincing case, including the supporting evidence, that supernaturalism is better at leading us closer to a more correct picture of reality than naturalism. And do not dodge the issue by saying this is not your responsibility. It most certainly is since you are the one making the claim that we must abandon naturalism, which more obviously comports with our observations of the material universe than does supernaturalism.
One final bone to pick with you. You define evidence as words and ideas that lead one to truth. But what do you mean by truth? I’m sure you are aware that this word can mean something entirely different if you are filtering it through a religious lens versus a scientific lens. I don’t know if you are doing this, thus I need you to carefully define the term. Secondly, your definition of evidence doesn’t match any with which I am familiar or that I or other empiricists use. Evidence is not words or ideas. Evidence is a body of facts and information indicating whether a proposition or claim is valid and/or correct. It is not merely a collection of words or ideas.
Professor, I must say that I admire your willingness to (sort of) define your terms. I’ve had exchanges with others on IC who stubbornly refuse to do so, as a means of evasion, rendering the discussion pointless. You, at least, are willing to put it right out there, and I respect that (no irony or sarcasm intended).
That said, your definition of ‘evidence’ – words or ideas that lead to truth – is flatly at odds with any modern scientific understanding of evidence. I assume you know that.
Stuff that people say, anecdotes that people tell, clever argumentation – none of that works as evidence, which is a key insight of modernity.
Such can be used to support anything. What is ‘obvious’ to you is ‘ridiculous’ to me, and there’s no bridging that gap, if we depart from the empiricism at the heart of science.
Will you go the extra mile and acknowledge that you are unconcerned with science, and that if science does not support your position, you will jettison science?
I am okay with your comment that in your original essay, you could not present ‘evidence’ for your position that God exists. But I’ve found through happy experience that the hard drive that is the IC comments section is functionally unlimited. I think you ought to tip your hand, just a bit: what the heck is this evidence you are talking about, that atheists refuse to respect? Cuz I haven’t seen any at all, ever. Provide a link or title or something.
Ozzie
The difference between the theists, and the non-theists here is pretty obvious.
The non-theist relies on his powers of observation, and his rational mind to separate fact from fantasy.
The theists insist that the existence of god is a proven fact. Why? Because it is. Facts are interchangeable with fantasies for the theist for the simple reason that they say they are. You can try to reason with them, but if you persist in backing them into a corner their ultimate answer is that it’s god’s will that it be so. The author makes this perfectly clear:
“Tell the skeptic he has no good reason to reject good evidence. Point out that he is assuming–not proving–the impossibility of the supernatural, that he cannot just assume the answer he prefers, and that his objections are nullified if the supernatural is possible. Demand that he either find real rebuttals of the evidence for God or else have integrity and admit God exists.”
One could argue the issue using their rules of what constitutes evidence, by pointing out the obvious pattern in history, that shows how man’s reliance on the god concept to explain things has been continuously diminishing since primitive man first evolved, in an inverse relationship to the growth of his rational knowledge about the universe. The theists keep changing their story, as it becomes more and more obvious to the average man that it’s all imaginary. Now, in its latest iteration, ID, they’re even admitting that the earth is indeed more than 6,000 years old.
What I find particularly annoying is their perpetually condescending attitude to non-believers. They genuinely feel sorry for us for not having been blessed with this divine revelation. I feel no sense of loss over this if for no other reason than I get to sleep in on Sundays. And if I’m being willfully ignorant of the obvious “fact” of god’s existence, then that’s fine. It reminds me of something that Dorothy Parker once said:
“”I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy”"
fs
There is lots of evidence for leprechauns. You’ve obviously never been to Ireland. They have a thousands of years old tradition of stories about the fairie people. Some of them eye witness accounts! And there are arguments too, the Lucky Charms proof, the Fighting Irish proof and of course the many documented cases of pots o gold at the end of rainbows.
Oh, good grief, I’ve never heard about most of what is discussed here. I do know that great scholars have written pro & anti God theories, great minds have known, for sure, that Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus, others have worshipped the sun, made human sacrifices to volcanoes, and some of you have decided to pick and choose whatever thesis agrees with your own preconceived beliefs.
I once heard a priest say that one does not question one’s faith. Well, if you don’t question it, how do you know it’s valid? Is God, to you, an omnipotent, all-seeing, all-knowing entity? If so, why should it bother you if someone is an athiest? And why is there such hostility toward athiests? Yeah, there are nuts on all sides, but most athiests are good, decent people. As a whole they don’t sponsor inquisitions, underwrite crusades, fly airplanes into buildings and hang women for being witches.
I’ve heard people say, ‘I’m a Christian’ as if that gives them a corner on being good. But, obviously, many religious people are very bad characters. Being good or bad should not come from a religious belief, it is an individual choice we all make and if you are ‘good’ because you are God-fearing and afraid you’ll go to Hell, then you are really not all that ‘good,’ you’re just terrified of being caught.
When I first heard about God, (or Santa Claus) as a child, I did not like the idea that someone somewhere was watching my every move. I didn’t know where to hide. Sorry, Roebuck, you didn’t convince me of anything and your imaginery conversation with an athiest is pointless.
Your words seems geared to those who are highly educated, well read, versed in debate. But most of us are not in that category. I don’t have a degree, just a high school diploma and I’m pretty proud of that, will match my wits against any Ivy League graduate. You may get more information at college, but that doesn’t make you smarter. OK, on my own I’ve read the Bible and I’ve read Mark Twain–he had something to say about religion. I read, research and make up my own mind, just as you do. That doesn’t mean we reach the same conclusions or that your ideas are truer than mine.
I have known people who have had the worst tragedy imaginable happen to them. I don’t know why bad things happen to good people, but for myself, explaining that God has some mysterious plan for all of us, that we’ll understand eventually, is no worthy explanation. However, if it
comforts you, Roebuck: Vaya con Dios, a bei gesunt.
For me, one of the most intriguing things about discussions of religion and related topics on IC is the fact that there are clearly a number of conservatives who are not conventional religious believers. Historically, this is puzzling, since the war of Left and Right has been regarded by many conservatives as a war between believers in ‘man’ and believer in God, or between secularism and religion. Perhaps Prof Roebuck holds some version of this opinion, but clearly there are other conservatives who do not.
Debating the theist versus atheist issue is as much a study in futility as attempting to discern the advantages of progressivism versus conservatism as there are no advantage to either the atheist or the progressive position. Progressives and secularists deny such existence for, in their world view, there is no room for God. Secular progressives worship at the altar of centralized government, any other belief system must therefore be destroyed.
The existence of God is taken on faith. An act of faith is subject to free will. An atheist has every right to deny the existence of God. The issue here is that they are willing to use their belief system to vehemently and vocally deny any others’ right to their own belief system.
The subject of the essay is the methods that atheists will utilize to belittle the position of the faithful. I do notice, however, that while atheists are more than willing to engage in the deliberate public debasement of Christian faith; I see they never attempt to engage the devout Muslim with the same condescending argument.
I can only reasonably assume that they have little concern as to how much distain they will publically heap onto any Christian, as they realize that such public scorn gives them a “two-fer”. First they are lauded as the commiserate secularist and celebrated among the ‘wine & brie’ crowd they seek the adoration of. They also get the advantage of the Christian’s faith as those persons will invariably ‘pray’ for their souls allowing them to store some points with the savior ‘just-in-case’.
One could reasonable wonder why such celebrated atheists as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett et al, have never been observed debating an Islamic Imam. I suspect that the difference here is that priests and preachers have not ever been known to issue fatwas, while imans are notorious for dispatching ‘wet work’ teams to the home addresses of infidels with orders to eliminate the offending atheist and their entire family as well.
I’ll consider taking the atheist argument seriously when the atheists decide to have the courage of their convictions and publish a work demonstrably, and publically, completely excoriating the entire belief system of Islam. Until ya’ll are willing to take on the most strident of the believers of God and let the chips fall where they may, you’re justa’ buncha’ pikers
To Mr. Wavering:
Thank you for weighing in on a topic about which you apparently know very little.
“The existence of god is taken on faith”
What in the heck does that even mean? Do you put leprechauns, mermaids, little green men, alien abductions, and seances into the same category? Do you feel that God needs no evidence, but Madame Fortune Teller is a fake?
And where does that “faith” come from? Somewhere along the line you are choosing to believe the claims of a human being, whether it be a preacher or your parents.
I’ve heard out and out lies coming from preachers, I have known and gone to school with priests, and my parents told me about Santa. And I beleived them!!! At least till I was 6 or 7. Therefore, you must pardon my temerity for refusing to accept your god on “faith” alone.
Without actual evidence, you are simply spinning tall tales. Your concept of God–your own personal belief in His existence– has no more credibility than does Batman or Paul Bunyan.
Simply because many people believe in God does not necessitate this being’s existence. Many people also believe or believed in the earth being flat, the sun orbiting around the earth, and a six day creation event happening just 6000 years ago.
Faith without evidence is meaningless. YOU may feel that your inner warmth is enough to support your religion, but I need a lot more to cause me to believe in tribal gods and accept a “story” that is both insane and impossible.
For the record, both Hitchens and Harris have attacked the Islamic religion and both have had to travel with security as a result.
Personally, I lump all three Abrahamic religions into the same category of insane and dangerous beliefs. Thanks to the Big Three, humanity has had to endure centuries of religious warfare and slaughter in the name of Allah, Yahweh, or Jesus. And all three are made up creatures. Ok, Jesus was probably a historical person, but the concept of Jesus Christ, Son of God, and redeemer of the world: that was made up.
True that Christians don’t burn people at the stake ANY MORE. But that is pretty much because civilized nations finally stopped allowing you to do so.
I put the Islamic pukes of 9/11 into the same category of evil as I do Timothy McVeigh, Harold Camping, and the entire camp of Christian apologists, whose work has been dedicated to defeating reason, destroying science, and turning OUR nation into a 21st Century version of Fifth Century Europe: a Christocratic dictatorship with evangelical preachers acting as arbiters of what American can and cannot say, think, or do.
We also could not care less about receiving prayers from Christians. Prayers don’t seem to work FOR CHristians; why should they work for anyone else? And of course, Christianity is the primary target here because Christianity is most vocal and most prominet here, especially the evangelical fundaloon segment.
And nobody in the atheist camp denies you or anyone else the right to believe in whatever you wish to believe in. Live under the specter of hell if you wish, pretend that a magic being loves YOU. Dance naked in your backyard at the summer solstice if you wish. But when you demand that I live according to YOUR precepts, according to YOUR tribal god, then no. When you demand that Creation be taught in science classes as a viable alternative to reality, then no. When you demand that you have the right to plaster the Ten Commandments onto the walls of City Hall, or Public Schools, or any government building that is paid for partially by MY taxes, then no.
At least four of those commandments have nothing to do with humans, and everything to do with how humans are required to worship an imaginary being.
Sorry, but your declaration that the existence of God is based on faith and that is enough is NOT enough!
Tim Campbell
Why you won’t see big-time public atheists attack Islam: First off, a hint: it’s not because atheists, secularists, or progressives actually agree with or approve of any of the tenets of Islam. Rather, for them there is no need to try to ‘refute’ Islam because Islam is not the traditional religious belief system of the West, and Christianity is. [Consider: what sort of profanity do we use? A Christian-based profanity] It is not the tradition of sharia or the hadiths to which religious persons turn for doctrine but rather the Jewish/Christian Scriptures, the teachings of Roman Catholicism, the Biblicism of the fundamentalists, etc. So, of course, the target of criticism will be distinctly Christian beliefs.
The second reason is political. To the extent that the attackers of Christianity have a political orientation, it is generic global Leftism. This means that the Islamic world consists of ignorant, but oppressed masses–oppressed by ‘the West,’ ‘capitalism,’ ‘Western imperialism,’ or whatever. So, out of ‘solidarity’ for the oppressed, for this season’s version of the ‘wretched of the Earth,’ such intellectuals will mute any criticism they might have of Islamic oppression lest they seem to favor the evil West in which they live, write, and profit.
Before I address specific comments, some general considerations:
The basic position of most atheistic commenters here is “There is obviously no evidence for God, and therefore anyone who thinks there is, is a fool.” They believe there is no evidence, not because there really is none, but because they apply the wrong criteria:
–Some say that all evidence must be empirical (sensory-bases.) But if ALL evidence must be empirical, then there can no evidence to support the belief that all evidence must be empirical, because empirical data will never prove this belief. Therefore the belief that all evidence must be empirical is false. Non-empirical evidence must exist.
–Some say that science (or the so-called “scientific method”—but there are actually several related scientific methods, none of which exhausts what scientists do) is the only valid way to know anything. But this is obviously false, because the scientific method cannot give any evidence to support the belief that science is the only valid way to know anything, and also because science is obviously dependent on many forms of knowledge that are cannot be validated scientifically (e.g., laws of logic, the belief that our senses give reliable information.)
Many atheists don’t explicitly say that they hold these beliefs, but it becomes obvious that they do when they discuss evidence and proofs. They will dismiss obviously valid arguments because they are not empirical/scientific.
Some of the commenters have asked me to give some of the evidence for God. For one thing, this is really a “meta-discussion” about the arguments for God rather than a discussion about their details. But more importantly, there is no point in giving this evidence to one who is not capable of understanding it. I will not discuss the theistic proofs with anyone who appears to be under the delusions that all evidence must be empirical or that only science can give us knowledge.
Instead, I issue such a one the following challenge: If you believe that all evidence must be empirical and scientific, how can you prove your position to be true in light of the above (summaries of) rebuttals? Why do you believe that all evidence must be empirical and scientific?
To Tim Cambell,
You are being emotional, not rational. Based on your last comment, I see no evidence that you know anything about the arguments for God. The true evidence for God is intellectual, not anecdotal.
To Gestell,
You object to my definition of “evidence.” I presume yours is “empirical/scientific.” But as I demonstrated above, this definition is obviously incorrect. It is foolishness to demand a sharp general definition of “evidence” because no valid definition can be given other than the one I gave. It is (in part) by demanding a sharp definition that you have fallen into the foolishness of atheism. Obviously evidence can be valid or invalid, good or poor. It depends on various factors. But a single definition cannot be given.
You ask whether liberalism versus conservatism must be Christianity versus atheism. In the large, and for Western society, that is correct, because the leftist worldview is based on atheism. But I acknowledge that honorable atheists can be conservatives.
To Waytoomuchcoffee,
Many atheists do use “Courtier’s Reply” in the way I defined. And if they use it in your sense, it is “Begging the Question,” not the “Courtier’s Reply.”
You assert that there is evidence for Leprechauns and for Isis. If so, then there is vastly more for God. And if you reject all evidence for God, you must also reject the evidence for Leprechauns and for Isis.
The evidence you cite is personal testimony which, although it can be valid, has a low degree of validity in and of itself. A high volume of coherent personal testimony, combined with other valid lines of evidence, can be valid evidence.
To Ozzie M.
You disagree with my definition of “evidence.” See my comment to Gestell above. Also, you wrote
“That said, your definition of ‘evidence’ – words or ideas that lead to truth – is flatly at odds with any modern scientific understanding of evidence. I assume you know that.”
You think all evidence must be scientific, which is a mistake.
To Swemson,
You said
“The theists insist that the existence of god is a proven fact. Why? Because it is. Facts are interchangeable with fantasies for the theist for the simple reason that they say they are. You can try to reason with them, but if you persist in backing them into a corner their ultimate answer is that it’s god’s will that it be so.”
This quote indicates that you have no knowledge of the real evidence for God.
To Bettyhere,
You asked “why is there such hostility toward atheists?” Speaking only for myself, I am not hostile toward atheists, but since beliefs and policies based on atheism are taking over and destroying America, I definitely am hostile to the false and destructive belief of atheism.
My essay was addressed primarily to theists, to encourage them that the atheist apologists really don’t know what they’re talking about.
Bettyhere, I would encourage you to read some of the arguments for God. Many books are designed to make these arguments accessible to normal people such as yourself. There is a lot riding on whether or not God exists, so you should try to study the issue before making up your mind. I would repeat what I said above: Don’t make the false assumption that all evidence must be “scientific.” Non-scientific evidence can be valid and lead to truth.
@ Tim Campbell, posted 11:54 am
I agree that “faith” (according to the popular misunderstanding of the term) is not enough. Since man is not omniscient, he needs evidence.
In this post you are angry, but anger is not rational. What are your criteria for deciding that the evidence for God is invalid and (since you are not omniscient), how do you know that your criteria are correct?
You are under more obligation than I to answer this question because you cut off certain lines of reasoning as invalid in principle, while I allow more of the evidence to be heard. So we first need to know, Why do you (as I assume, please correct me if I’m wrong) allow only empirical/scientific evidence?
Alan:
no no no no.
“The basic position of most atheistic commenters here is “There is obviously no evidence for God, and therefore anyone who thinks there is, is a fool.” They believe there is no evidence, not because there really is none, but because they apply the wrong criteria:”
I have never said that there is OBVIOUSLY no evidence for God. I have repeatedly said that neither you nor anyone else has shown any such evidence. The only evidence that theists have shown has been in the form of anecdotal testimony and claims of authority.
By evidence, I DO mean verifiable events, not hearsay or “alternate ways of knowing” Second you say something like that, you are making the rantings of schizophrenics and con men admissable as “evidence”.
“In this post you are angry, but anger is not rational. What are your criteria for deciding that the evidence for God is invalid and (since you are not omniscient), how do you know that your criteria are correct? ”
Anger may not be rational but it can be both righteous and justified. Your own bible attests to that.
When you ask if my criteria is correct, you imply that you can simply make up your own criteria and then demand that criteria to be accepted by all. My criteria is open for debate. It is not omnisicient or infallible or inerrant. My criteria is simply the request that you provide something other than the hearsay testimony to support the existence of God.
You have not, you have refused to. I am now thinking that perhaps you really do not have any to show.
As for your little attempt to insult MY knowledge of theology, that is hardly a valid argument. In fact, you seem to counter all arguments with the questioning of the commenter’s expertise. Do you really think that I would bother to post a comment if I had not done a lot of homework and studying on thisd subject? Do you think I came to atheism by way of watching an episode of Dr. Phil?
I dare say that I would put my knowledge of religion and mythology up against yours and would bet a dollar or two that my knowledge of religion outweighs your knowledge of science and history.
Quite frankly, you have done little but use rhetorical tricks to argue your point with me and with other posters here, so unless you can produce evidence that you have any knowledge of this subject, perhaps you should refrain from posting and do a little more reading. If you wish, I can recommend a few primers in science and a few good starter books on comparative religion and comparative mythology.
“The true evidence for God is intellectual, not anecdotal.”
That is not even a potentially intelligent comment. You are attempting to make your wishful thinking and fear of being condemned to Hell into forms of evidence.
You challenge atheists to prove our position. We do not have to prove anything. At this point, you offer nothing but rhetoric and wishful thinking. We simply reject your sotries as being made-up nonsense. Of course you can believe in them. But when you post your beliefs here, you subject them to analysis and if what you say sounds like nonsense, then we have the right to tell you that you are talking nonsense.
Instead, I issue such a one the following challenge: If you believe that all evidence must be empirical and scientific, how can you prove your position to be true in light of the above (summaries of) rebuttals? Why do you believe that all evidence must be empirical and scientific?
Whoever said all evidence must be empirical and scientific? Moral questions cannot be, obviously. Things that have happened in the past, if they have left no physical trace, have no evidence either. We can never “prove or disprove” (in the deductive sense, not the axiomatic sense) many things. We can “prove or disprove” in the inductive sense, but I won’t get into that now. I assume being a math teacher you know about this? Hard to say with the appalling logic of your essay above.
However, Christianity does make assertions that God or Jesus or whoever does make changes in the physical world, and continues to do so. For example, if prayer works, we can look at it empirically, and people have (doesn’t seem to work).
Empirical evidence is obviously better than subjective/personal evidence, because it can be verified by other people. Otherwise, why should I believe you? As Penn Jillette said: “Why can’t Charlie Manson say “I can’t prove it but I can have a feeling that the Beatles are telling us to kill Sharon Tate and that the race riots are coming?” Why can’t Al Qaeda say “I have a feeling in my heart that we need to kill these particular infidels?” Why can’t the men who tortured and disfigured Ayaan Hirsi Ali—why isn’t what they feel in their heart valid?”
“You are under more obligation than I to answer this question because you cut off certain lines of reasoning as invalid in principle, while I allow more of the evidence to be heard. So we first need to know, Why do you (as I assume, please correct me if I’m wrong) allow only empirical/scientific evidence?”
Alan:
Let me address this last question. Because if we open the door to accepting evidence that is NOT empirical or scientific, then we might as well open the door to anything from scientology to leprechauns to the claims of everyone who hears voices in their toaster ovens.
John, the author of Revelations, received his “book” from Jesus who spoke to him in dreams and from a hole in the roof of his cave!
I have worked with schizophrenics, and the voices they hear are real to them.
Joan of Arc was a witch to the English; she was God’s Joan to the French. She heard voices who hooked her up right unitl the French betrayed her and the English burned her.
My friend Spaceship Jim walked the streets of his city, holding spirited conversations with the folks walking with him. He was the only one who could see those folks.
A line needs to be drawn between what can be considered viable evidence and what cannot. Having seen how the religious nuts behave and having seen the dishonesty that litters the evangelical movement, I am going to demand a higher standard of evidence.
L. Ron Hubbard told a group of science fiction writers that if they wanted to make a million bucks, they should just start a religion. He said this openly and yet many many people are now Scientologists.
Joseph Smith was a convicted con man.
Abraham pimped his wife. Twice.
Moses refused to let anyone else come up the mountain with him. Even claimed that if they tried to get near, Yahweh would burn their butts. The Burning Bush only spoke to him.
Jesus told his followers that they would be kings and each would sit on thrones flanking him and be in charge of the world. And all this would happen before they were ALL dead.
So please tell me what YOU accept as valid criteria for determining the existence of God.
For me: no demonstrable and verifiable miracles, no belief.
Tim
Alan: “since beliefs and policies based on atheism are taking over and destroying America” Okay, we can actually have a reality-based discussion about that one. What are these policies based on atheism? I must say that I doubt the existence of any, since there are only a handful of open atheists elected to any public office in America. Or do you know who is a crypto-secular atheist, potentially dominated by crypto-radical Islamists?
ok, Alan. Before we go any further, YOU need to define a simple term. God.
There are thousands of concepts of God. Thousands of gods. Every ancient tribe had its own “protecting god” and its own creation myth.
You are a Calvinist so I have some specific preumptions about you, but you are also a mathemtatician so I can see a need for order, especially the underlying order that mathematical axioms can give.
But are you being honest here? Are you arguing for the existence of A GOD, or are you hiding your specific God under a veil of nebulous “intellectual” argument?
Do you argue for a nebulous “Creative Being” when you are really thinking about the being that would be behind the insane anti-human tenets of Calvinism?
Would you like to discuss the Depravity of Man, Predestination, or the Doctrine of the Elect? Or do you prefer to hide behind rhetorical tricks and verbal sleight of hand?
Define the God whose existence we are debating.
A nebulous creator being? Can’t really prove or disprove that, or even care to. No idea what if anything exists outside of the known Universe or what might possibly have come before this Universe came into existence some 13+ billion years ago (do you have a problem with that number, Alan?)
But the God of John Calvin? No problem. A logical impossibility that I would expect a math major to see through in about ten minutes of honest thinking.
So let’s get down to the old brass tacks, shall we? Define your God. Tell us what your intellect has determined and tell us what evidence you hold to. Tell us what traits your concept of God posesses and what gives you the knowledge that this god possesses such traits.
Or do I need to receive some sort of magic pixy dust in order to have the intellectual capacity necessary to understand your knowledge?
Nobody is accusing anyone else here of being a fool. But when you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up as well. And if you are just hiding behind trickery, then shame on you.
to Norwegian Shooter: You may not be very far along in your study of conservatism. If you were, you’d know that those whom conservatives believe to be trying to take over and destroy America–i.e., liberals, progressives–just MUST be atheists or they wouldn’t be trying to do that. Why? Because that’s what atheists and progressives do.
Years ago I had just finished the opening lecture of my intro to American government class when a young woman approached me, clearly upset. “I guess they made them take it out,” she said, holding up the fat introductory textbook the class was going to use. “Who made who take what out?” I asked. “The 10 Commandments,” she said anxiously. “What about them?” I replied. The girl opened the book to the rear material, which–as is usually the case with such texts–contains the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, selected chapters from The Federalist, and the like. “They took the 10 Commandments out of the Constitution,” the student said. “The 10 Commandments were never in the Constitution to begin with,” I said. “Yes they were. Everybody knows that!” the student asserted. “Well, then those people are incorrect,” I said mildly. “I guess it was the liberals,” the student said, initiating a new line of discussion. “What did the liberals do?” I asked. “They made the publisher take the 10 Commandments out of the Constitution,” the student said with finality. From that day forward, the student didn’t believe a word I said, or anything in the text. Clearly, the girl was a good conservative Christian.
“The issue here is that they (athiests) are willing to use their belief system to vehemently and vocally deny any others’ right to their own belief system.”
I do not see this as accurate. True, a relatively small number of people have gone to court over God here or God there, but a true athiest, in my view, doesn’t care what others believe. Our world is full of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, inter-faith groups pushing their agenda–vehementaly & vocally–just read the original post here. Why shouldn’t athiests have the same rights?
I agree that it is not politically correct to take on Islam. A recent congresswoman wants Peter King to investigate how Christians will bring down the country??? I don’t know what her religion is, but she’s a certified nut. And, yes, it’s much easier to take on those who will ‘turn the other cheek’ than those who will cut your head off.
I live among liberal Dems. Their common trait is that they truly believe that they are smarter, know more, are better educated than those who do not agree with them. Did you see Jon Stewart tell Chris Wallace that Wallace swims in a ‘soup’ at Fox and, thus, doesn’t see things as clearly as he does? Stewart, the uber-liberal, doesn’t seem to realize that he chooses to exist in some sort of cerebral, pure atmosphere far above those of us who disagree, and aren’t we lucky that he deigns to come down from time to time and enlighten us.
I mention this off-topic because some ‘conservatives’ on this site are playing the ‘liberal’ game. Whatever their source, they know the truth of their position and if you disagree, then you are (fill in the blank).
Let me point out–without fear of contradiction–that these discussions have been going on since time began. People have slaughtered each other over an issue that cannot be proved one way or another. Oh, yes, people say they know the truth–how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And, who in their right mind would care or even think to ask such a silly thing? I know people believe in Heaven & Hell, etc, but I don’t know anyone who’s been there. Does anyone really know anyone who really, really knows any of the things taught in any religion?
So we discuss & fuss today and, you know, 100 years from now when we are all dead and buried, people will still be making the same arguments about the same things–things that nobody has the answers to because they are made-up questions. And the athiest says, ‘who cares?’ So we can all go on about proof and what kind of proof, and at the end of the day, the end of the year, nothing will have changed. Never has, never will.
So we discuss & fuss today and, you know, 100 years from now when we are all dead and buried, people will still be making the same arguments about the same things–things that nobody has the answers to because they are made-up questions. And the athiest says, ‘who cares?’ So we can all go on about proof and what kind of proof, and at the end of the day, the end of the year, nothing will have changed. Never has, never will.
I agree Betty. Personally I don’t care what people believe. I do care when they force their beliefs onto me. However I am coming from the libertarian perspective, not the conservative one which also seems to believe in big government, but run by different people.
These beliefs includes;
- Forcing prayer in public schools I am forced to pay taxes on. If I have to pay, then you don’t get to pray. I wonder how many of the evangelical pro-prayer people would mind if their kids had to listen or participate in Muslim or Jain or Hindu prayers. This goes for bible instruction in schools (teach that on your own time!)and creationism or ID. Aagain, how would evangelicals feel if their kids had to learn about the role Satan played in the creation of Adam and Eve, but the schools taught the Arabic version where Satan is a Genie.
- Trying to pass laws that restrict people’s rights. I live in California, and it was the religious groups that forced Prop 8 onto us. I would rather eliminate religious marriage altogether (if Churches want to do it, fine, but leave me out of it), and just make it all civil marriage.
- Not buying alcohol on certain times on Sunday (or the day altogether). The State has no place in telling me what times I can drink.
- Forcing schools to drop sex ed, trying to restrict birth control, and then having me pay for all those mothers and kids that wind up on the public dole.
- Teach kids that entire classes of people will burn in hell. Great. So much for little Horowitz in the same class as the kid of some religious nut.
- Having the government tell us what procedures woman can have on their own bodies. If you think the mother and doctor are going to hell, fine. Let your god sort it out after they die.
- Having shrines on public land that I pay the upkeep for.
- State laws that are still in on the books that prohibit atheists from holding office. Yes I know these are Federally unconstitutional, but that won’t stop a delaying lawsuit on the state level.
First, I would like to thank the hosts of this website and its various members for even allowing this debate to take place. I respect the views of conservatives, though I disagree with some. I do not respect the fundaloons who have taken over the conservative movement. I do believe that their motives are sincere but ultimate anti-American as well as anti-human. I am liberal in many areas, but am not Satan. I believed in much of what Barry Goldwater espoused.
As for Alan Roebuck, he began all this by denigrating atheism and misrepresenting what atheists say or believe. He hid behind rhetorical tricks, but in fact he is a Calvinist whose theology declares that every one of us who is NOT a Calvinist was condemned to hell trillions of years ago by an all-knowing and all-powerful deity. All knowing and all-powerful, but unable to change his mind or affect the future because to change one thing would then change the entire plan that he knew about apparently before he even planned it.
This is not conservatism, nor is it American. It is a determination of theocracy and a class system worse than the caste system of India.
In any event, I want to thank those who are regular visitors to this site for putting up with us liberal atheists!
Think on and demand to see the hidden wheels!
Tim Campbell
Mr. Campbell,
Consider hanging around. I’m the closest thing to being the resident liberal on IC and occasionally I could use some company. Even though they know I’m an enemy of all they hold dear, they at least let me post here.
As for Prof Roebuck and his Calvinism, historically, the core of American Christianity is to be found in Calvinism and its many denominational forms. That’s what the people Americans call “Pilgrims” were: Puritans (English Calvinists). Conservative historian Barry Allen Shain has done great work in drawing attention to the roles played by Calvinists in shaping American values. So I say: Calvinism cannot simply be written out of American conservatism; its moral heritage is a part of what conservatives (if they knew what they should know) are trying to conserve.
“Calvinism cannot simply be written out of American conservatism; its moral heritage is a part of what conservatives (if they knew what they should know) are trying to conserve.”
Gestell: Thank you for verifying that liberals suffer under the illusion that they know more than the rest of us. It’s tough stumbling around in the illiterate darkness. Thankfully, we can always count on liberals to come to our rescue. What would we do without you!
Bettyhere, I’m just trying to help you folks. Where do you think most of your lines about ‘traditional morality’ and ‘family values’ originated? Sometime one of the heavyweight conservative intellectuals on this site (Dr. Kerwick, Bill, perhaps) should explain exactly when and why today’s conservatives decided that their own history is irrelevant to what they believe today. It’s the most amazing single fact about most of this country’s conservatives–indifference to and lots of ignorance of history.
reply to waytoomuchcoffee,
You’re another who should think about hanging around here more often. After that list of beliefs, I hope you don’t think you’re a conservative. Welcome to the Left! I’ll teach you the secret handshake and give you the access codes to the big liberal mainframe that controls the black helicopters some other time.
“Bettyhere, I’m just trying to help you folks. Where do you think most of your lines about ‘traditional morality’ and ‘family values’ originated? Sometime one of the heavyweight conservative intellectuals on this site (Dr. Kerwick, Bill, perhaps) should explain exactly when and why today’s conservatives decided that their own history is irrelevant to what they believe today. It’s the most amazing single fact about most of this country’s conservatives–indifference to and lots of ignorance of history.”
See, I knew I could count on you to lead me out of the darkness. You’re really too kind. Maybe you would like to tell us where YOU get your morals & values, since you know so much about how I get mine. Wait, wait. I’ll tell you the secret, just between us. I get my personal morals and values from my own value system which I have developed all by myself over many decades without any help from religion. Yes, I understand we are all influenced by the mores of society, prevailing religions, wars, depressions, bigotry, public hate & love, Hollywood–whatever we’ve all lived through, they don’t exist in a vaccuum, and , yes, they subtly influence both you and me. You reached your conclusions, I reached mine. Did you miss the whole discussion about athiests?
It’s interesting that this article brought so many comments. In my 30 years as an atheist I think I talked to maybe 5 people about this issue. Most of those conversations had nothing to do with politics. But I’ll try to make a few points here that do not jive with some of the pre-conceived notions in the comments;
1. I was a conservative and a Christian as soon as I could think. When I decided to become and atheist, it was after reading Ayn Rand, and I remained a conservative. About 12 years ago a “Fortune Teller” type person told me some things that brought me back to God. I now consider myself a Conservative/Libertarian.
2. I never have nor do I now feel a need to supply evidence of my faith.
3. When I read “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” I believe that it was the intension of the founders to acknowledge God. Afterwards this was an assumption that our system was based on. Without God there is no sin and man is the last word. Actually it is only one, or a few, that have power. This gave the great dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam the power of life and death. The founding documents protect our right to be atheists, but if the government becomes God-less we are in trouble.
4. I know the lib’s think up all kinds of “rights” but this one about schools having a right to teach sex ed is a new one for me.
5. Marriage is a very old institution. It’s not a right. It’s good for children and it’s good for people in general. Being gay (or homosexual, or bi, or queer) is not. There is plenty of evidence for this.
6. Years ago it was difficult to know when a fetus was alive. It’s not so hard now. Sonograms show living babies with all the right parts for life. I remember the first kick of both of my children. It makes no sense to say a 8 ½ month old fetus is not human and then the day after they are born they are human. We even prosecute people for two murders when a pregnant woman is killed. I don’t get it.
7. I don’t like to be lumped in with any fundamentalist of evangelical ideology so please, before you type Conservatives this or Conservatives that, think a little about the diversity of thought in the Conservative movement. Yea, I know I said “Lib’s” and I did that just to mock you.
My apologies, Bettyhere: You make yourself clear when you write: ” I get my personal morals and values from my own value system which I have developed all by myself over many decades without any help from religion. ” Now it’s clear that you’re really a liberal. The idea that people get to develop their own morals and values and their own value system is far,far away from conservatism in any form, in all its forms. Over here in liberal-land we call this ‘moral autonomy,’ and its partisans are such liberal paragons as Kant and Rawls. If your views didn’t need the help of religion, then you’re even more on our side. Welcome to the Left, Bettyhere.
“My apologies, Bettyhere: You make yourself clear when you write: ” I get my personal morals and values from my own value system which I have developed all by myself over many decades without any help from religion. ” Now it’s clear that you’re really a liberal. The idea that people get to develop their own morals and values and their own value system is far,far away from conservatism in any form, in all its forms. Over here in liberal-land we call this ‘moral autonomy,’ and its partisans are such liberal paragons as Kant and Rawls. If your views didn’t need the help of religion, then you’re even more on our side. Welcome to the Left, Bettyhere.”
Gestell, dear, it’s a wonder you can get your pants on straight you spend so much time twisting yourself, and my personal thoughts, into pretzels. I was born into a liberal Dem family, everyone I know is liberal, but as time went on I determined that they did not have the best ideas for me, personally, or the country as a whole. It brewed for a long time, but by the time I voted for LBJ, the Dem, and watched the way things then played out, I determined I had to go my own way. You don’t know jack about conservatives, only your preconceived ideas about it. We are not monolithic–a play of the libs–get the black vote, the Jewish vote, the Hispanic vote–create a designation and determine how everyone in that cubbyhole feels. You have no justifable cause to do that. We are NOT all the same–notice the variety of opinions on this topic alone. I know libs very well, grew up with them, associate with them–and that’s why I can best you all day long. I know where you come from and I’m not going back there. Don’t think you can use my words to trap me into thinking otherwise. I’ve had these discussions over and over for years, I’ve heard it all. Bettyhere
Ivan:
“Without God there is no sin and man is the last word. Actually it is only one, or a few, that have power. This gave the great dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam the power of life and death. The founding documents protect our right to be atheists, but if the government becomes God-less we are in trouble.”
A lot of issues in your comment, but I will address this one with a big HUH?
Did you ever hear of the divine right of kings? Are you aware that pretty much every theistic monarchy since the beginning of civilization used the annointing powers of the god-priests to justify their own absolute power and their use of this power to slaughter both their foreign enemies AND THEIR DOMESTIC ENEMIES?
Please read your own OT books of Judges and Kings and enjoy the blood shed by the rulers of GODFUL nations.
Spain during the inquisition. England during the reigns of Mary, queen of Scots, and later of Elizabeth.
Look at Ireland under English occupation.
Our own treatment of blacks (remember slavery?) and Native Americans (too many to list, but think Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears).
We are in trouble if our government becomes god-less? No, Ivan, exactly the opposite.
I do agree that without God, there is no sin. That is actually freeing. I can think whatever I want. I can enjoy sex with whoever is willing to have sex with me, I can pick up firewood on Sunday, or do any sort of work or play that I wish. I can make my own choices, speak out against superstition and ignorance, and work for human welfare without having to give a thought to how an imnaginary being is being catered to.
I cannot murder or steal or harm others. Reason: we humans have established a system of laws. Not always perfect, but we have a mostly fair system in place that does not require the threat of eternal punishments in order to protect me from others or others from me.
For that matter, about ten minutes after God gave Moses the commandment to avoid killing (actually doing murder), he and his supporters were whacking everyone who dared to doubt his con–I mean revelation.
It was not the lack of God that gave Stalin or Mao their powers of life and death. And God failed to prevent Hitler and the Ugandans and the Serbs from committing genocide. Keep in mind that the Serbs are and were a very devoted Christian people. Didn’t stop them from slaughtering Muslims or setting up rape camps for their own entertainment.
Maybe instead of listening to a fortune teller (whatever the heck that means!!!!) you should have read little more actual history. You might still be a conservative, but you wold also probably have remained an atheist (though more accurately you sound like you were more of an agnostic; I cannot imagine too many rational people visiting fortune tellers).
And btw, marriage is a human contract. It’s neither a right nor a divine sacrament. It is a human contract between humans. Last I saw gays were tax-paying American humans. If you don’t want them marrying inside your “club” that is your right, but you have no right to deny them the ability to enjoy all the same privileges that you enjoy. They have served in the military and many have given their blood and their treasure to defend us. I’m straight, a veteran (USAF and USAFRes–Vietnam era) and if two gays want to declare their love and make a committment to each other, I sure have no problem with that.
If your only problem with gay marriage is religious, then YOU are the one with the problem.
And no, the founding documents do nothing. They are words on paper. Important words, but only words. The rights you speak of that those words express had to be won–with blood, and defended–with blood–again and again. Who are you to now deny any of those rights to any other American citizen, especially those who have also put their lives on the line?
Calvinism and conservatism. An unholy marriage or the underpinings of American strength?
Too late to say much now, but I would like to address this issue.
Would not denigrate the contribution of Calvinism to the positive growth of America, but a number of old women were hanged as witches by the Puritans also.
A dichotomy that needs to be addressed in detail.
This has indeed been one of the best discussions about religion. In other forums I have been viciously attacked as soon as my atheism became evident from my remarks.
Alan Roebuck clearly doesn’t understand the difference between believing something is true and knowing or thinking something is true. The way he uses the term, a belief can be based on nothing more than one’s imagination. The term is often used in the same way that “thinking” is used. As an example: “I believe (think) that our team will win next week.”
But saying:“I believe in god” is certainly not the same as saying: “I think Hemingway was a great writer” The first is an unsupported “belief” whereas the latter is an educated opinion based on one’s own experience. Looking at a flame on your stove and saying: “I know you’ll burn your hand if you put it in the flame” is a totally different thing than saying “I know that god exists”
Mr. Roebuck also strikes me as being intellectually dishonest when he accuses atheists of trying to force their “beliefs” (or lack thereof) on others. When I was a teenager visiting my grandparents in the Boston area, I wasn’t allowed to hit balls on a public driving range on Sunday before noon. The good people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts apparently thought I would be better off if I spent that time in church. The vestiges of “Blue Laws” like that are still present all over the country. There was an excellent documentary shown on “NOVA” on PBS about the recent lawsuit over the teaching of ID in public schools in Dover Pa. (It’s available for viewing on YouTube) It showed proof of how dishonest the people pushing ID were in several parts of their courtroom testimony. I’m not saying I believe they were dishonest. I’m saying they were dishonest… FACT! Watch it and you’ll see.
Bettyhere makes an excellent point when she says that conservatives are not all monolithic in their beliefs and positions, and she’s right. I’m a right wing radical for pure, laissez-faire capitalism, however I’m also an atheist. On another, (now defunct) website, where many of my articles were published, there were a bunch of fundaloons who insisted that I was a Marxist because I was an atheist. Since Marxism is such a secular philosophy, they reasoned that as an atheist, I must be a Marxist. A better example of how religion can rot the brain, I’ve never seen.
I’m a hardcore conservative, but on most of the “social” issues, I’m as liberal as they come. I could care less if gays want to go through a marriage ritual. It has no effect on me, & frankly, if going through that ritual can bring some semblance of peace & happiness to their sad and unfortunate lives, I think that anyone who tries to stand in the way is simply evil. The world has had more than enough grief from religious people who think they have the right to tell others how to live their lives. I’m for legalizing all drugs. The only victims of drugs that I care about are people like my 88 year old aunt, who got knocked over by a teenaged thug who was trying to steal her purse for drug money. She broke her hip when she fell, and never walked again. The purpose of our government is to protect us from others, not ourselves. The only legitimate American “entitlements” are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, but the last of those three means nothing if we’re not allowed to keep the fruits of our labors. When my parents and my grandparents came to this country from Europe, they got nothing from the government, and they, and others like them built the richest and most prosperous nation in human history.
But Betty leads us to what I think is the most important part of this discussion, which may have dire consequences for all of us who want to kick Obama and all of the progressives out of Washington in the next election. It was all over the news on Fox earlier this evening.
Santorum & Bachmann were attacking Romney because he won’t sign a pledge saying that he won’t select anyone for any governmental position of consequence who’s not pro life. The obsession of the Republican party with issues like abortion and gay marriage has the potential to scare a big number of otherwise rational people, who know that Obama’s Marxist ideology is destroying what’s left of our once free economy and way of life, into staying home on election day, or worse still, voting for Obama again. I know many such people, who although uninterested in politics, are good, hard working, successful and intelligent people, and who are more scared of the Christian right than they are of the progressives who are destroying the country.
We saw what happened in 2008 with Sarah Palin. Since she had a far better resume than Obama, they couldn’t attack her on her record, so they attacked her because of her traditional values and religious beliefs. To me it was the worst case of political character assassination I’ve ever seen. Every time we on the right, start carrying on about abortion and gay marriage, we make a significant percentage of the people in this country think we’re a bunch of bible thumping bigots. Frankly it disgusts them, and me as well.
We did well in 2010 because we stuck to the issues. This next election is mostly about the economy, with a smattering of concern over national security, which includes immigration, and issues like Obamacare as well. Jobs are the overriding issue, and governments don’t create jobs, rational self interest & the free market creates jobs. If we stick to these primary issues and don’t paint targets on our backs by parading around with religious banners all the time, we stand a good chance of winning, assuming we can be sufficiently vigilant to protect the progressives from stealing too large a percentage of the votes.
I’m not suggesting that ANYONE change their personal belief systems one bit. As foolish as I think religion is, I like nothing better than living in a truly christian community. They make great neighbors, as do I. All I’m saying is that all the fundaloons should simply cool it for a while. And here’s a strictly rational reason why they should.
Neither abortion or gay marriage is on the federal ballot! That may seem a bit simplistic, but if the truly devout among us would think about it for a moment they’ll realize 2 very important FACTS. The 1st, is that we’re not going to end abortion or gay marriage in this election. That can’t possibly happen. The 2nd is that we KNOW, that if Obama gets a 2nd term, whatever chances we may have had of ever overturning Roe v. Wade will go straight down the drain.
So by all means, stick to the issues that will defeat Obama. If you’re so passionate and dedicated to the cause of stopping abortions, then you MUST make sure that Obama is defeated. It’s merely a question of priorities. Defeat Obama and then go try to overturn Roe v. Wade if that’s what you want to do. If we defeat Obama, we’ll be back on our way to being a free country once again, and you’ll be free to pursue your goals. And the bigger his defeat, and that of ALL other progressives and RINO’s, the better chance we’ll have to make some REAL change in this country.
Thus endeth the sermon.
fs
Camtimothy,
The existence of God is taken on faith. You ask; “What is faith?” Faith is trust, hope, and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity. That is faith.
You argue from the point that if no discernable physical proof of God’s existence can be provided, then you will not accept his existence. I have no problem with that. I’m not trying to ‘convert’ you, nor am I attempting to save your soul. Actually I have so great a concern over mine that I could not possibly care less for your ‘eternal’ condition. If that becomes a problem with my Savior, we will work it out.
You confusingly believe that there is some type of debate here over the existence of God. No such debate exists. Just as progressives will plug their ears and shout; Neener, neener, neener, I can’t hear you!” whenever reasonable people attempt to debate political issues with them, atheists do the same relative to God. In my post I merely pointed out how atheism and progressivism go hand-in-hand. Just as I can never provide the proof you will accept on the existence of God, you cannot provide evidence that atheism and progressivism is not linked at the hip.
I have no issue with that as I really don’t require your acceptance in order to practice my faith. However; I still suggest that you truly lack the courage of your conviction. TO truly deny the existence of God you must challenge that belief wherever you encounter it. The fact that atheists will not take on Islam is proof enough that, for you, such conviction doesn’t really exist.
Would I be willing to place my life on-the-line for my conservative beliefs? Yes I would, my prior military service to this country proves my conviction to the Republic. Would I be willing to place my life on-the-line for my religious convictions? Once again, that answer is yes. Both combat and Catholicism have inured me against the fear of death. I will not run from such. I have prepared myself to the best of my ability. I will practice my faith in the face of atheism or Islam. If such practice invites death, so be it. The question here, is can you make the same series of statements?
THe quote below is snagged from another website. Refers to a woman’s claim to be either a psychic or (her preference) a “prophetess”. I am including it simply as a comment to Alan regarding what ought to constitute viable evidence.
“A couple of days ago I covered a story from Texas about a police team sent on a hunt for a mass grave after receiving tips from a “psychic.” After discovering the grave did not exist the police were searching for the woman who called in the tips. CBS News contacted the supernatural tipster and has released their interview with her. Apparently she is frustrated with being called a psychic because the woman, who was only identified by her nickname “Angel”, considers herself to be a prophetess.
This story keeps getting better!
Angel stated she thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion and she felt like she was just doing the right thing. She went on to explain how she only told the police there were three children to be found, not the mass grave widely reported. Whether she thought it would be 3, 30, or 300 she was wrong.
Here is Angel’s version of what happened when she called the police,
‘They up-front asked me how I got the information, and I am a reverend. I am a prophetess and I get my information from Jesus and the angels, and I told them that I had 32 angels with me and they were giving me the information and then it went from there,’ she said.”
I would not question the womna’s sincerity, but I do question the woman’s sanity. Is this the sort of “testimony” that can take the place of empirical evidence?
Sorry, but while it COULD be that this woman is actually in direct contact with Jesus and a host of angels, I suspect a mental illness. Without being able to cross-examine her (or at least have people question her who do deal with mental illnesses), I can onlny lean toward her being crazier than a duck on crack.
reply to camtimothy
Something tells me that you would find some way to explain this story your way even if they had found something. Besides, if she is nuts how does that affect you?
Mr. Waverling:
“atheism and progressivism go hand-in-hand.”
You say this as if it were an accusation, a bad thing? So progress is inherently bad? Is that what pushes the “conservative”?
Modern medicine, bad.
Cures for dozens of diseases, bad
A low infant mortality rate, bad
Increased life expectancy and better health for the aged, bad.
Knowledge of the size, age, and scale of the universe, bad.
Modern health care, bad
child labor laws, bad
safe working conditions, bad
safe air travel, bad
modern roads and infrastructure, bad
electricity in almost every home, bad
refrigeration of foodstuffs, bad
Slavery abolished, bad
Women voting, bad
Negroes voting, bad
Private property rights, bad
Clean restrooms, bad
Sorry, but not only will I not argue with your contention, I accept my association with progress and progressiveness with pride. I DO look forward, but am capable of looking back and seeing what “progress” has meant.
Obviously, this whole 21st Century-the world didn’t end thing doesn’t sit well with you. Which century DO you prefer? Fifth, Tenth? 19th?
“The existence of God is taken on faith. You ask; “What is faith?” Faith is trust, hope, and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity. That is faith.”
I understand the definition. You might add the word “unsubstantiated” just in front of “trust”. The initial comment by Alan explicitly stated that there was an enormous amount of evidence supporting the existence of God. He has refused to elaborate, but since his background is Calvinistic, I presumed that he was referring not to a nebulous creator-being, but to the specific God of the OT and NT. Yahweh/Jesus, in other words.
So far neither he nor any other Christian posting here as provided anything beyond what you have stated in the above quote.
I respect your right to believe in a deity without having any viable evidence, and of course you need not provide me with any such evidence–that is Alan’s responsibility–UNLESS you are weighing in to support his contention.
“You confusingly believe that there is some type of debate here over the existence of God.”
Except that that is exactly what the debate is about. We were just trying to pin you folks down on the rules for the debate. You seem to want to make this a sliding scale in which you can decide if something is viable, while we have to accept your contentions without question. Doesn’t sound very American to me. Sounds like a theocracy.
“However; I still suggest that you truly lack the courage of your conviction. TO truly deny the existence of God you must challenge that belief wherever you encounter it. The fact that atheists will not take on Islam is proof enough that, for you, such conviction doesn’t really exist.”
Now you are getting personal and displaying that you really do not know what you are talking about.
First, I do not HAVE to do anything. Second, I am here in America, I was raised in America in the Christian environment so my primary knowledge is about the Christian religion (in its kazillion formulations). So my primary interest will be the religion with which I am most familiar.
Third, I am not denying the existence of God. I am denying the existence of tribal gods. Yahweh, Jesus as “Christ”, Allah are very specific tribal gods. They are ALL inventions of pre-scientific Mesopotamian tribes. IF there is an actual creator-being, I am saying specfically that such a being has absolutely NO relationship with any of these tribal gods.
Fourth: you have obviously not read any actual books, articles, or blogs, written by atheists. Islam has been slammed again and again by such as Harris and Hitchens. And I have done so as well in my blog and in my posts here and elsewhere.
For the record, I also served in the military, so you can put your “I’m a patriot” card away–doesn’t impress me. I have put, and continue to put all three of the Abrahamic religions into the same kettle. They may have served a useful purpose at one time (though I would argue about this, based on their history), but I BELIEVE that humanity would be much better off if they disappeared today.
At least religious warfare would be reduced dramatically.
Tim Campbell
Ivan:
“reply to camtimothy
Something tells me that you would find some way to explain this story your way even if they had found something. Besides, if she is nuts how does that affect you?”
You’re probably right. IF they had found something, I would probably look for a natural explanation. That IS how science is supposed to work. But note that I said IF. They did not. Her voices lied to her.
Her being nuts does not affect me at all. I agree. I only gave this article as an example of how the religious mind works. No real difference between her and Harold Camping, who has millions of followers who STILL believe in his prophecies.
UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS!
Both made specific claims and both have been proven to be completely 100% wrong. THAT is why the determination of what constitutes viable evidence becomes important.
Mr. Waverling can choose to have “faith” in either of these people if he wishes. Personally, I need more. If the supernatural being doesn’t want to provide more then that is his problem. If folks like Alan and Bill do not want to provide more, then I stand by my disbelief.
Tim
[...] 2011 — Deacon Duncan Alan Roebuck, at intellectualconservative.com, has what he hopes is a stinging comeback the PZ Myers’ argument commonly known as “The Courtier’s Reply.” Atheists [...]
[...] Roebuck, at intellectualconservative.com, has what he hopes is a stinging comeback the PZ Myers’ argument commonly known as “The Courtier’s Reply.” Atheists have a new tactic [...]